Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Removing Holocaust Denial Content

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#691

Post by throwaway894345 »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #317
throwaway894345 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they? Because I still regularly encounter educated people who can't tell the difference between free speech and threats, harassment, etc. If you can't distinguish between free speech and coercive speech, then you don't understand the free-speech position that you purport to oppose ("He who knows only his own argument knows little of that"). I recall a thread on cancel culture a few months ago where virtually eve…

Distinguishing between free speech and harassment requires discernment, which is what a lot of modern people are either not trained to do, don’t have time to do, are too lazy to do, or have been brainwashed against. More and more, we demand bright lines in a society increasingly filled with gray areas because we charge ahead without consideration. It’s never been easy and current social pressures make it even harder…

This is why we should craft a system that doesn't depend on discerning between free speech and harassment. If we strengthen employment protections, then we don't have to litigate whether "it would be unfortunate if you were fired for this tweet..." was a thinly veiled threat or simply free speech--the employee can rest assured knowing that their livelihood, health care, etc is secure and they can freely advocate for their political beliefs.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#692

Post by shadowgovt »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #677
shadowgovt wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it does at least as much harm to "good ideas" as to "bad ideas" If that's the case, then one is assuming that the public is incapable of discerning good ideas from bad ideas. Calling that into question calls all of American democracy into question. At that point, why even leave leadership up to the voters? A dictatorship, oligarchy, or plutocracy would be wiser if the public really can't determine for themselves wh…

> If that's the case, then one is assuming that the public is incapable of discerning good ideas from bad ideas. I'm assuming that the mob can't, and that even a democracy struggles; however, given enough debate good ideas will rise to the top more often than not. The viability of this kind of debate depends on free-speech ideals, however--our debate is presently very toxic in no small part to the fear that cancel cu…

What is the difference between "the mob" and "the public?"

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#693

Post by duxup »

nailer wrote: post #682
duxup wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All hate groups seem dated, sadly hate doesn't seem to just sort of become a thing of the past :( As far as you question goes to some extent yes. I wouldn't want to see some sort of litmus test for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group. A specific christian identity group (randomly made up here) that is hateful, no problem with removing them. All Christian groups, no.

Why not? Nearly every interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah is anti gay (I personally interpret the story as about not raping, but that's off topic). Why wouldn't it be OK to ban a belief system that specifically discriminates against an innate feature?

I don't think that any system that has something you can find objectionable about it would mean you should ban a group.

There is a difference between groups with some questionable beliefs about others, and those whose groups are entirely about hating other people.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#694

Post by emerged »

beervirus wrote: post #421
anm89 wrote: post #292

It's amazing to me that people don't see the irony that a major tactic of the nazis was quelling free speech. We are so scared of the nazis that we act like them. This is of course how they framed it too. They would have claimed they needed to protect themselves from the dangerous ideas, literature, art of the Jews.

It's like "antifascists" assaulting people because of who they vote for.

We've been full 1984 for long enough now it feels cliche to even bother pointing it out.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#695

Post by throwaway2048 »

skrowl wrote: post #670
amadeuspagel wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the effects of speech on the real world has always been the reason for censorship. "Ignore voices you don't like" isn't a refutation of that old and honest argument in favor of censorship, it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech.

> it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech Once you convince people that the other side is evil and your side must win at all costs, they'll rationalize any behavior. This includes censoring and de-platforming voices that don't agree with them. After you've convinced yourself that "I believe that we should hire whoever is the most qualified, regardless of…

Just to reground the rhetoric, we are talking about facebook removing posts by people that try to convince others that one of the largest genocides in human history didn't happen, not about all that other stuff.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#696

Post by fennecfoxen »

netsharc wrote: post #660
hef19898 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is such a thing as factual truth. That we, as a society, have reached a point where we lost the basic concensus of that is very troubling. Denying the Holocaust is like denying gravity. Both things, the Holocaust and gravity, are factually true. We have to be able to call people out for denying that. And while denying gravity is just stupid, denying the holocaust is outright dangerous. Taking steps against that…

The fact that this post is grey depresses me that HN is full of Holocaust-denying, or more likely, libertrarian Ayn Rand-fetishizing jerk-offs... Might as well vehemently argue that the earth is flat, if you think the Holocaust was faked.

I am confident that none of the people who downvoted such a comment believe the Holocaust was faked.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#697

Post by maxehmookau »

whateveracct wrote: post #267
maxehmookau wrote: post #254

No Facebook, you don't get to use this as a PR win. This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago. This isn't a free speech issue. Anybody can deny the holocaust, but Facebook should not be profiting from the propagation of fringe and deeply offensive views. There is no justification for doing so. Facebook is not a library and it is not a repository of well-written, peer-reviewed ideas and thoughts…

> This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago. Agreed. Video games forums in the '00s could do this - why did it take FB so long? To be fair, Holocaust denial & related ideology was more universally hated back then. It's managed to rebrand as of late into mere contrarianism.

The fact that HN is a community where my comment has been downvoted is utterly terrifying. I’m not sure I belong in this community.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#698

Post by ephimetheus »

saas_sam wrote: post #618
davorak wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others. Are these armchair critiques? Or are these people/groups putting in serious effort to change things? That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them.

Your comment is strange... 1. ephimetheus: The only people who have a problem with these laws are bad people with evil intent 2. me: I just looked and there are a lot of people voicing problems with these laws who are good and have noble intent 3. you: But are they prioritizing the issue enough or are they just saying stuff? ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if people aren't making enough o…

Not sure what you dug up, but I’m not aware of anyone with an interest other than proving “see, we weren’t the bad guys”. Since the Holocaust is a historical fact, historians without revisionist goals have no reason to debate its existence. Research into the extent and details of the Holocaust are perfectly acceptable. Side not, the absolute vast majority of German society is on board with this limit of freedom of speech. It’s part of the constitution even.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#699

Post by ephimetheus »

0x5002 wrote: post #671
ephimetheus wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holocaust denial is banned in Germany (same as swastikas by the way). It works really well. The only people complaining are literally people trying to twist perception of the arguably worst crime in the history of humanity, to make Germany look like a victim. FB is clearly doing the right thing here. Free speech has limits.

> Free speech has limits. Not in America, it does not. You folks have "hate speech" laws, banned symbols, banned words, banned expressions, and used to have banned video games, music, and movies. The core of your legal system has the concept of "honor"/"dignity", which is inherently subjective. The justification is always a variant of your thought, saying that it will only affect "bad people", with the very definitio…

I see your point, sure. But look what the US is like now. I think you guys built the arguably more solid democracy the second time around in Germany..

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#700

Post by ephimetheus »

dcolkitt wrote: post #500
ephimetheus wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holocaust denial is banned in Germany (same as swastikas by the way). It works really well. The only people complaining are literally people trying to twist perception of the arguably worst crime in the history of humanity, to make Germany look like a victim. FB is clearly doing the right thing here. Free speech has limits.

> It works really well. The Weimar Republic did have hate speech laws, that were vigorously enforced and similar in spirit to modern-day Germany's laws.[1] Not only did that fail to stop the rise of the Nazi party, but the legal machinery was actively co-opted post-1933 to censor anti-Nazi groups. In contrast, in the 1930s the most ardent pro-free-speech countries were the America and Britain. (Contemporary British h…

Large parts of the constitution are explicitly designed to stop a repeat of what happened in the Weimar Republic. It’s not perfect, but so far it’s doing it’s job.
Post reply on HN